ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00049178
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jevgenijs Kirjacevs | Citibus Ltd Dublin Coach |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00060449-001 | 09/12/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00060479-001 | 11/12/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/04/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The Complainant submitted the above complaints shortly after his dismissal on the 28th of November 2023. The Respondent fully contested the claims and raised a preliminary objection arguing the Complainant did not have the requisite service to be covered by the Unfair Dismissals Act and that they paid him the required notice. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant wrote to the WRC the day before the hearing indicating that he could not attend. He did not request a postponement or offer any reason for not attending. He requested that I decide the matter solely on the basis of the documentary evidence he had submitted. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent attended the hearing and was fully prepared to make their case. |
Findings and Conclusions:
There was a significant dispute between the parties as to the Complainant’s service. Both claims hung on this issue. If the Complainant had established the requisite service, then there was a still a significant dispute as to the merits of his dismissal, though the burden would have been on the Respondent to establish that it was not an unfair dismissal as prohibited by the 1977 Act. However, from the outset of the case, the burden was on the Complainant to establish that he fell within the protections of the Unfair Dismissals Act and that his notice hadn’t been properly paid. The Complainant did not attend the hearing though he was on notice of it. In the circumstances the complaint must fail. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
CA-00060449-001 The complaint is not well founded. CA-00060479-001 The complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 05th of April 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|